Sudheeshkumar vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7389 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7389 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

Sudheeshkumar vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2021

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

   WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       CRL.A.No.18 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 1924/2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,KASARAGOD

    CRIME NO.507/2020 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD


APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             SUDHEESHKUMAR
             AGED 25 YEARS
             S/O. V.S. GOPI,
             RESIDING AT VADAKKEYIL HOUSE,
             ATHIRUMAVU, PALAVAYAL VILLAGE,
             VELLARIKUNDU TALUK,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671326.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.T.MADHU
             SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

      1      THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM - 682031,

      2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671326.

      3      XXXX, AGED XX YEARS
             DAUGHTER OF XXX
             DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 507/2020 OF
             CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT

             R1 BY SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.GP ATROCITIES AGAINST
             WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN
             R1 BY SRI.K.B. UDAYAKUMAR, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl. Appeal No.18 OF 2021          2


                               JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred under Section 14A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The

appellant is the accused in Crime No. 507/2020 of Chittarikkal

Police Station.

2. The allegation is that the appellant/accused had

committed repeated rape on the victim, a deaf and dumb lady of

36 years old. The alleged incidents had happened about seven

months prior to 01.10.2020, the date on which the First

Information Statement was given by the elder sister of the

victim. It is stated that the victim lady lives alone after both her

parents had passed away. When she developed an abdominal

pain, she was taken to a private hospital at Maloth, where it was

detected that she was pregnant; she was referred to the District

Hospital, Kanhangad for further management where, after

subjected her to scanning, she was found pregnant by seven

months. She is unmarried. It was revealed that the accused had

subjected her to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage.

She belongs to Vettuva community of Scheduled Tribe and the

accused belongs to Thiyya community. On the basis of the First

Information Statement, the said crime was registered alleging

offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l), 376(2)(n) of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act.

3. The appellant was arrested in connection with the

crime on 03.11.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. By

the impugned order dated 04.01.2021, the learned Special Judge

for the trial of cases under the Act, dismissed the application for

bail and aggrieved by the same, he has come up in appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that for about 120 days the appellant is in custody, that the

investigation has been completed and charge sheet laid before

the court, that there is no need for detaining the appellant further.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor has stated that the lady

has since given birth to a child, that the appellant is the

neighbour of the victim.

5. On this appeal, notice was issued on the defacto

complainant as provided under Section 15A(5) of the Act. Even

though notice was duly served on her, she has not chosen to enter

appearance.

6. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned Special Public Prosecutor.

7. Even though it is observed by the learned Sessions

Judge that the appellant is a hard criminal and a threat to the

peaceful life in the society, one cannot be detained in custody

indefinitely, especially after completion of investigation and

filing the charge sheet. After hearing the learned Special Public

Prosecutor, overwhelming reasons are not made out for the

continued detention of the appellant in custody till the case is

attained finality. Keeping the suspect in custody in such a

circumstance is a luxury, which is unwarranted. It is the settled

principle of law, in normal circumstances, that bail is the rule and

jail an exception. However, in order to meet the apprehension

raised by the prosecution, it is only appropriate that the appellant

shall not enter Chittarikkal police station limits till the

examination of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses

before the trial court.

8. Thus in reversal of the order under challenge, the

appellant shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

i) The appellant shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Act;

ii) He shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence;

iii) He shall not enter Chittarikkal police station limits, till the examination of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses before the trial court;

iv) He shall not leave the country without permission of the trial Court;

v) He shall appear before the trial court as and when required;

vi) He shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and the Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic;

vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the appellant, the trial Court can cancel the bail, in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.